ED022497a: Truth In Testimony

About the Author

Congress is considering new, stricter clean air rules proposed
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As usual, lawmakers
are being lobbied both by environmental groups who favor the new
rules, and by representatives of industry who don't.

The news media, also as usual, are siding with EPA and the
environmentalists. Not that they are blatantly saying the tree
huggers are right -- they would never be so obvious. No, usually
what they do is point out that the "scientists" (notice the "scorn"
quotation marks) testifying against the new rules are being paid
big bucks by big business. The implication is that corporations who
make money by raping the environment are just worried they're going
to lose out, so they're hiring scientists to spout their line.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm as much in favor of keeping the
environment clean as the next person. And I don't deny that
scientists who work directly or indirectly for U.S. corporations
testify before Congress.

But I don't like it when one standard is used to judge those
lobbying against the new rules as bad, and another standard to
judge those in favor of the new rules as good. That's called a
double standard -- and it's not fair. So let's apply the same
standard to the "good guys" and the "bad guys" and see whether the
good guys still smell so good.

It just so happens they don't. The scions of big business aren't
the only ones with a financial stake in the outcome of this debate.
As it turns out, the environmental groups who favor the new,
stricter clean air rules are getting paid too. By none other than
the EPA.

That's right. Almost all the groups and researchers pushing the
costly new air pollution rules are getting money from EPA grants.
This includes both the American Lung Association and the Natural
Resources Defense Council, both of which have received millions in
grants in recent years.

According to Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist at Loyola College in
Baltimore, Md., this federal money provides cover for the EPA to
push expensive new mandates that will cost industry billions of
dollars a year. And you know who winds up paying those bills in the
form of higher prices? Yep, we do. The consumers. "The EPA is
funding advocates on one side of the issue," says DiLorenzo.
"They're skewing the debate in favor of the EPA's position, and
using tax dollars to do it."

A few examples, in case you don't believe me. A recent article
in the New York Times quoted a letter signed by George
Thurston, professor of environmental medicine at the New York
University School of Medicine. "Tens of thousands of hospital
visits and premature deaths could be prevented each year by more
stringent air quality standards," Thurston wrote.

While the Times story made clear the link between
scientists testifying against the new standards and their industry
financiers, no mention was made of the three-year, $383,000 EPA
grant Thurston received last year to study the health effects of
"acidic particulate matter."

And get this -- the American Lung Association (ALA), which has
received more than $5 million from the EPA since 1990, sues the EPA
almost every year, contending the agency isn't enforcing the clean
air laws. The EPA is happy to lose these lawsuits, because losing
means they get to expand their enforcement powers. The EPA is so
happy to be sued it often asks lung association officials to
testify before EPA hearings -- and reimburses them for the cost!
The ALA received $8,500 in reimbursements alone from the EPA in
1995, DiLorenzo found.

No wonder the House of Representatives just voted to require all
witnesses testifying before Congress -- advocacy groups and
corporations alike -- to reveal the amount and source of any
federal money they receive. Now, thanks to this "Truth In
Testimony" provision, maybe we'll begin to hear, as Paul Harvey
always says, "the rest of the story."